In the fall of 2006, the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) reported that out-of-wedlock births had reached a record high (Hamilton, Martin, and Ventura 2006). At about the same time, new Census Bureau figures, as interpreted by the New York Times, indicated that married couples for the first time represent less than half the nation’s households (Roberts 2006).
Following ten years of welfare reform that was supposed to discourage unmarried childbearing and encourage marriage and two-parent families, these reports are perplexing news, indeed. Whatever the budgetary savings, welfare reform has failed from the standpoint of the family. The figures “clearly show that the impact of welfare reform is now virtually zero,” says Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, “and we are going back to the way things were before welfare reform” (qtd. in Wetzstein 2006).
It has been well known since at least the Moynihan report in 1965 that welfare serves as a disincentive to marriage and an incentive to divorce and unwed childbearing. Yet no explanation has been forthcoming for why cutting back on welfare has failed to reverse the trend. In fact, this failure raises far-reaching questions about our entire approach to what has become known as “family policy.”
As implemented thus far, welfare reform is unlikely to make a large difference and remains a step behind the problem. The continued rise in out-of-wedlock births no longer proceeds only from low-income teenagers. Indeed, in terms of this target population, welfare reform does appear to have had some impact. The NCHS reports that the birth rate among girls ages ten to seventeen dropped in 2005 to the lowest level on record. Births to unwed women in their late twenties, thirties, and forties, however, have risen and account for the now-record numbers. Inspired perhaps by books such as Rosanna Hertz’s Single by Chance, Mothers by Choice: How Women Are Choosing Parenthood Without Marriage and Creating the New American Family (2006) and Peggy Drexler’s Raising Boys Without Men (2005), or at least the subject of these books, these women are joining their low-income counterparts in moving beyond divorce to dispense with marriage altogether. Yet the children of divorce still almost double the 1.5 million out-of-wedlock births annually in the continued growth of single-parent homes. Given 4.1 million total births annually, this problem now touches virtually every family in America.
Because of these trends, the perception has become widespread that this seemingly intractable problem proceeds primarily from “culture” and that policy remedies are therefore pointless until the culture changes. James Q. Wilson throws up his hands and expresses the frustration and paralysis: “If you believe, as I do, in the power of culture, you will realize that there is very little one can do” (2002). Given such a response, the initiative will likely pass to congressional liberals who hope to roll back welfare reform altogether.
The George W. Bush administration’s approach seems to be predicated on this same cultural assumption. Programs to encourage “healthy marriage” by building “relationship skills” and inculcating methods of “conflict resolution” and “child behavior management” are largely continuations of programs conceived during the Clinton administration to “promote responsible fatherhood.” So far there is little evidence that these programs have any measurable effect on marriage or out-of-wedlock birth rates, and some observers question the wisdom of the federal government’s operating family therapy (but see Birch et al. 2004). Financed by a small portion of welfare funds, these programs arguably serve, like welfare itself, as a form of political patronage, increasing the client population on the public payroll.
Although the role of culture should certainly not be discounted, the problem is also driven by federal policies and funding that welfare reform did not remedy and may even have exacerbated. Once again we are faced with a question of incentives created by spending. Yet the problem has grown more complex than simply disincentives to work and family formation created by public assistance. Ignored thus far is how expanding welfare-originated entitlement programs have extended the subsidy on single-parent homes to the affluent. Moreover, the perverse incentives create perverse behaviors not only among the population, but also by governments.
[End excerpt]
Published in The Independent Review, vol. 12, no 3 (Winter 2008). To read the entire 22-page article, download the PDF here.
Rate this post:
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Stumble It!
Dittohd said,
What programs does this refer to? Entitlement programs to the affluent?
December 17, 2007 at 5:33 pm
metalman said,
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again here. There is a coterie of very powerfull women who plan on allowing upper middle class and upper class women inexpensive access to artificial insemination. This group then plans on forcing the federal government to pay for the day-care and healthcare expenses of ALL children of single mothers, regardless of economic background. That will be their big coup. The Orwellian leap.
Gender feminism and its pseudo academic cousin, cultutral studies, are fully ensconced in Marxism. The adherents of these false disciplines cannot think in any terms other than state entitlements and matriarchal protections. The matriarchal state plans on forcing men support other peoples’ children so that they may achieve their utopia. It is that simple.
I’ve made jokes before about children at long tables in community halls, waving their little red books and singing hymns during the dinner time indoctrination. This is what the real gender feminists want. Make no mistakes. They have a plan, they have money, they have marketing, and they have the votes.
This will be easy to accomplish. Today’s career women already play the dual-mentality game of claiming strength and independence while at the same time relying on the state to provide them with entitlements and confiscated wealth via the divorce courts. It wil be very easy for a lot of women to say, “You see, we can raise children by ourselves!” while hapless fools unload bags of grain with United States Government into their communcal kitchens.
I believe that the alienation and destruction of men in divorce courts is also part of the plan. My theory is that their has been a concerted effort to distance men emotionally, intellectually and morally from their own biological instincts to care for their children - to depersonalize them, in a sense, into believing that the only reason they exist is to write checks and go away.
The ease of filing false allegation charges, the VAWA, cruel child-support laws, the unjust pillaging of men’s assets, the ascendence of false rape allegations - all of this has been constructed to tell men that we are worthless and that the only thing that matters is our paychecks. We are the depersonalized hoard.
And BTW - Rosanna Hertz is a liar. It’s not Single By Chance, it’s Single on Purpose. She is a propagandist for the feminist utopian state.
December 17, 2007 at 8:32 pm
mruffolo said,
A country that worships women, children, and pets is willing to look the other way when corruption, lying, and injustice against their own men is obvious.
Legislators and citizens are willing to spend money and talent on programs with the buzz words of “family”, “child support”, domestic violence”, “diversity”, “children”, and or “women’s” in the title or mission, though these programs promote a divorce rate of one of the highest in the world of about 220 countries.
While America courts incarerates a man for two years for killing a dog, she waives a murderous woman’s sentence. She also let’s a female teacher free who raped a boy, yet she incarcerates a man for a decade who wrote dirty words to a boy in an Internet chat room.
I’m not surprised that after 400 years America was attacked behind it’s own borders. I am not surprised that China, a traditional patriarchal country, past America in foreign investments (after America was the number one innovator in the world for about 200 years). I am not surprised that the American dollar is being depeged by major financial players.
America is unjust and unfair against its greatest asset - average men.
December 17, 2007 at 9:19 pm
amfortas said,
A summary would have to stress Corruption. Comprehensive system corruption. Corruption of Truth, corruption of Institutions, corruption of Human Spirit.
It is in the best interests of the children - and every damned body else - that MRAs give this article as many legs as possible.
December 18, 2007 at 4:55 am
roger said,
December 18, 2007 at 9:36 am
randyf said,
While men are left with but 2 choices: pay or jail. No benefits of fatherhood and marriage, just the responsibility to pay. And pay. And pay.
THAT’S THE PROBLEM!
December 18, 2007 at 10:18 am
randyf said,
December 18, 2007 at 10:20 am
NotNOW said,
December 18, 2007 at 11:10 am
metalman said,
“as welfare checks have gone down, child support abuse toward men has risen sharply.”
“The older gals get pregnant, and have older men, in their 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s, support their lifestyle choice. With the full weight of the federal and state governments behind them.”
This is exactly what’s going on. Come hell or highwater, the matriarchy is going to get the money to support its Utopia from SOMEWHERE. And they’ll enlist their jackboots to get it.
December 18, 2007 at 11:47 am
JamesH said,
Saying the unsayable
Daily Mail, 11 December 2006
What is that strange and unfamiliar noise that we can all suddenly hear? It is the sound of politicians saying the crashingly obvious.
Today the former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith, who heads his party’s Social Justice Commission, publishes a devastating analysis of social injustice in Britain. The welfare state, he says, is in a state of collapse.
http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=471
December 18, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Thomas said,
Excellent Article. I have sent the link to many friends. Furthermore, I for one, would like to thank you for your tireless efforts in this war.
December 18, 2007 at 12:39 pm
merck said,
In cases of child birth outside the marriage, give the child to the biological father.
Provide him with:
Adequate housing
A check every month
Full medical and dental coverage
Free legal services
Free schooling
Food stamps
FIC coupons …
… and a whole host of other “free services”, then tell the mother to get out there and get a job, or two jobs, or three jobs to support this child. Garnish up to 90% of her income to pay “child support” and if this “unconscionable deadbeat” can’t keep up with the payments throw her worthless, sorry, “deadbeat ass” in prison to rot.
Any reasonable person would immediately concede that this would stop unwed pregnancies virtually overnight. The only problem being this would put many of the disgusting parasites who earn their living abusing these children out of business in one generation.
Single females bearing children for profit is only rivaled by the divorce industry in terms of providing jobs for scumbags who make a living “exploiting our children”.
December 20, 2007 at 8:23 pm
right2parent said,
Everyone is sure we need a so called marriage amendment to include only a man and a woman in a marriage. Why? Because it’s an essential charactoristic of marriage. Another essential charactoristic of marriage is the shift in natural guardianship rights that comes with this contract. An unwed mother is the natural guardian of her children. A woman assigns this natural right under the marriage contract to the father. She recovers this right if the father abandons or neglects the family, but the use of the so-called best interest standard allows the state to place state wards where there is no guardianship status by right, whether it is the mother or the father.
Without recovering this once widely recognised lawful status, and the requirement for finding fault to change it, marriage is a doomed institution because the rights and responsibilities that hold it together are ignored.
December 23, 2007 at 12:06 pm
merck said,
I think both of our statements address primarily the same issue and that is the “best interests of children”.
They both illustrate the use of “the best interests of children doctrine” as being the catalyst for the exploitation of our children.
My contention is, and has been all along, that we need to stop assisting this program of government intrusion and exploitation by refusing to cooperate in any way, shape or form with these “disgusting” and very “dangerous criminals” no matter what the cost in personal sacrifice.
Merry Christmas
December 25, 2007 at 12:12 pm
right2parent said,
December 25, 2007 at 9:41 pm
merck said,
I’m not interested in going into great detail. The point I’m trying to make is that it needs to be a “scorched earth” policy, by a substantial portion of the population, or else they will just continue to plunder.
“Scorched earth” doesn’t leave a lot to the imagination, and I don’t think it requires an explanation. This is essentially a “war” and requires extreme personal sacrifice. The only other option is submission and servitude. Unfortunately, future generations will suffer the consequences for our cowardice.
Several generations of Americans have been the beneficiaries of our forefather’s courage and honor. Are we the generation that will bring disgrace to every good person who gave his life so we might be free?
Over my dead body.
December 26, 2007 at 10:19 am
merck said,
“Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity has a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them if we basely entail hereditary bondage on them”.
- Thomas Jefferson
December 26, 2007 at 10:39 am
right2parent said,
December 26, 2007 at 4:44 pm
merck said,
You must be very proud of yourself.
Why isn’t what the courts are doing extreme?
Isn’t kidnapping people’s children “extreme” in your mind?
Why is making sure they don’t profit from this “criminal activity” extreme?
Don’t bother to answer those questions; I’m not interested in your “politically correct rhetoric”.
I think MLK had people like you in mind when he made this statement.
“A man who won’t die for something is not fit to live”.
-Martin Luther King Jr.
December 26, 2007 at 5:04 pm
snootfish said,
1) She doesn’t need a long term relationship with him to get financial support. She can get it directly from the government through welfare, food stamps, etc. Or, she gets it indirectly through the governmnt by means of government enforced exhorbitant child support. Actually, she gets more financial support if she throws him out. She can get support from him and a new man (or the government). She can get support from half a dozen men by having a child with half a dozen men. Child support is much the same as a lottery winning. Think about it. $1,000 or $2,000 or whatever each month for 18 year. This is very much comparable to a lottery winning.
2) She doesn’t need a man to have a child. There was some purpose in considering unmarried women and fatherless children as socially disapproved. This social disapproval served useful social purpose. Obviously, you disapprove what you want to discourage. There are very good reasons for discouraging fatherless children. Society now uses social disapproval in spades against men, but it cannot seem to disapprove anything with respect to women.
What I really want to know is not just how many children are born outside wedlock but how many children are born against the faher’s wishes. I think many, many men have realized that fatherhood is raw deal right now and try to avoid it. I would suspect that most of the children born outside marriage (and any inside marriage) are against the father’s wishes. His wishes of course don’t count for nothing. Women have choices not men.
This is all very sad. A generation of men looking for love and finding only slavery. Childen are wonderful and part of life fulfillment. However, when children are used as a tool of emotional and financial enslavement (and destruction), they are something to be avoided. My oldest son is within child bearing years (just barely). I imagine his marriage. I feel only dread and fear for his well being — no joy. I imagine announcement of a grandchild through him. I fear only suspicion (is it really his), dread, and and fear for his well being — no joy. It is a very sad world.
Women have no incentive to be faithful or to include fathers in the lives of their children (in fact the converse incentives). Men have every reason to avoid fatherhood and marriage. I based on my unscientific observations of my environment believe that men are acting in their interests — avoiding marriage. They are successfully avoiding children to some extent but the only way to completely avoid it is avoidance of sex or surgery.
December 27, 2007 at 12:31 am
right2parent said,
It’s about making the right legal argument, not about loosing your cool with wild attacks.
snootfish said, Everything that a man offers a woman in exchange for a long term relationship has been eliminated.
You can’t “eliminate” an inalienable right. What they’ve done is convince the public that the state’s so-called parens patriae power has somehow grown to now undermine laws given by God. That laws relating to the placement of state wards now regulate natural guardianship relationships guaranteed by the marriage contract. That is the status that’s threatened by the state.
December 29, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Denis said,
another great column. Thank you. You are among the few true leaders in the men’s/father’s movement.
The government is a big part of the gradual disintegration of this society. By the end of this century America will end up as the British Empire ended up. Hillary Clinton will eliminate any possibility of re-directing this society from this end. It will most likely occur even if Clinton does not become President. Cultural/social shifts are almost impossible to re-direct especially when considering the dominance of feminism in this society. Feminism’s momentum will not dissipate fast enough to save America. America is finished. China will one day sell us the rope they will hang us with.
It is ALL feminism’s fault.
They have destroyed America.
Men have no significant rights left to be loyal to America. Men ought not protect America. Men ought not think of America’s future-only their own. The government has displaced men from this society and the government ought to look to the women to protect it. Men no longer ought to allow this country to view them as expendable and disposable. Good luck if you believe America’s women can save this country.
December 30, 2007 at 2:13 am
merck said,
(Yawning)
No wild attacks here. You sound like a feminist accusing people of “wild attacks”. I’m simply calling it the way I see it, so relax, and stop with the feministic victim mentality.
(Scratching my nose and yawning, sorry, coffee hasn’t kicked in yet.)
You can make all the legal arguments you want, but it does you no good, if there isn’t anyone willing to listen to your arguments. I’m not saying the arguments don’t need to be raised, and funneled through appropriate channels, I’m just saying it will take civil disobedience to bring the issue to the forefront.
I’ve been a big fan of Stephan Baskerville since I first read one of his articles. If you have read any of his work you would understand the severity of the problem. I don’t think we can wait for Mr. Baskerville to sanction civil disobedience, I think it’s a moral decision that must be made on an individual basis. I don’t have to explain that any further to someone who could never contribute financially to their own enslavement.
Baskerville talks about people in the legal profession who defend the practices of the Family Court as “defending the indefensible”. I say that fathers who pay for their own exploitation, by paying extortion under the guise of so-called “child support”, are guilty of the same.
Until that basic truth is realized and widely acted upon, all the legal arguments in the world, will amount to needlessly spinning your wheels. But, you are correct of course, that the arguments must still be raised and properly submitted.
(Yawn)
In summation, I sincerely hope I’ve not offended any of your delicate sensibilities.
Sincerely,
Kevin Merck
December 30, 2007 at 10:55 am
right2parent said,
I’ve in fact read just about everything he’s written on the subject. He has even used some of the research I’ve provided for him in his articles regarding child support spending for self sufficient families. He has a very good handle on the effects of government overreach through family courts, but still lacks an understanding of how the legal system has been manipulated.
I don’t know where you get “delicate sensibilities.” I’ve fought my own battles as well as helped several others do the same for years before gaining an understanding of the legal deception at work in family courts, and the documentation to prove it. I’ve been to federal court to try and get Minnesota’s Battered Women’s Act declared unconstitutional because it discriminates against men. I’ve helped several others fight back in their own cases, and I don’t consider civil disobedience to be the only method available to get the attention this requires. I think it’s a waste of manpower. That’s not to say I don’t endorse it at the right time, however, and I have encouraged and facilitated it in several cases.
You can go to jail if you like, and take as many with you as you can convince of its virtue, or you could participate in a movement that systematically brings the issues to the forefront with widespread, simple pleadings in their own cases. A consolidation of these actions are the way to move the real issues around legal obstacles in our path. Martyrdom is the last reaction, not the first.
December 31, 2007 at 10:30 am
merck said,
I think Baskerville will begin to distance himself from the so-called “fathers’ rights movement”, in no small measure, because of people like you who claim to have all the answers, yet lack the courage to even use their real names.
(Yawn, sorry, not enough sleep last night)
I think I know what you’re talking about as far as the … “simple pleadings in their own cases”.
I had the help of some people in filing certain “pleadings” in my own case, for a price, of course. Turns out they had just borrowed the idea from Pamela Gaston and were in the business of trying to turn a profit from these “simple pleadings”.
If you really want to help people in this endeavor then you should post all of your knowledge of these “pleadings” on the internet, where people can utilize this information on their own, and if you’ve already done so, please forget I mentioned it.
http://www.barefootsworld.net/sui_juris/sui_juris.html
I think the last thing most of us want, is to have all kinds of “entrepreneurial fathers” rights advocates”, peddling their “ideas” on the internet for a price.
If you are not one of these “scumbags” then don’t take offense.
I will carry on this conversation further if you use your real identity. If not, I will not respond any further to your comments.
January 3, 2008 at 2:31 pm
right2parent said,
My identity is easily found. It’s Scott Booth. I live in Apple Valley, MN. What about you? BTW, I won’t charge you for that.
As I look forward to your comments, planning a coordinated approach across the country is what I’m advocating, and marrital rights, I feel, is the key to understanding the issues. These blogs are not the only things I take part in. They have been useful to determine the general public’s understanding of the legal issues involved.
I don’t claim to have all the answers, but it appears I have a fair number more than you. If you have any comments relating to the legal issues involved, I would be glad to discuss them with you. Please try to limit the character assaults in the mean time.
Thanks.
Scott Booth
January 4, 2008 at 9:57 am
right2parent said,
Regarding custody, there is an inalienable right to liberty relating to guardianship rights acquired in a marriage relationship. These rights can not be legislated away without a compelling reason. It describes our patriarchal system of government that has not “evolved,” in spite of the wishes of the feminist’s order.
Attempts to “gain” equal rights to guardianship under shared parenting legislation ignors the fact that fathers have a superior right in a marriage relationship in the first place, and does nothing to address the attack on what is known as one of the great relationships in life. Patriarchy isn’t the boogie man. It describes the marriage relationship in terms of legal doctrine. If you can direct me to any evidence that this common law doctrine has been abandoned or materially changed, I beleive I can show you how the evidence relates to the placement of state wards.
See http://www.citizensrule.org for a discussion of child support issues.
I’m open for discussion, but I don’t think I deserve the ridicule.
January 4, 2008 at 10:30 am
merck said,
My name is Kevin Merck and I’ve never tried to hide that from anyone by hiding behind a pseudonym.
Are you sure you’re not a feminist? The reason I ask is because you play the victim so well. You accuse me of ridicule, while dishing out a healthy portion of your own, also a common feminist trait.
If your interest in this “struggle” is to restore a Patriarchal Dictatorship in the family, then I’m afraid you’ll not have any of my help. My interest is to see the incentives for divorce removed from the equation. Shared parenting, (50/50) with no child support, and no alimony, and equal division of only those marital assets acquired after the marriage. I think that’s what needs to happen.
Also, what needs to be addressed, (which is what this article is about) is the “single mother” issue. Men need to be afforded the equal protection of our laws when it comes to decisions about parenting. The following is something I wrote for a different blog but it fits here as well.
[Blaming men for women getting pregnant is what feminists have been promoting for many years now. Their mantra has been “he should have kept it zipped up”, never acknowledging any responsibility on the part of the female.
The fact that so many of you have bought into that garbage is unfortunate.
Women are just as responsible for keeping their panties on, as any man is responsible for keeping “it” in his pants. The simple fact of the matter is that people have sex, and no matter what precautions are taken, there is no guarantee that a pregnancy will not occur.
The issue then becomes a matter of equal protection under the law. Women must not be given special consideration because of their gender. Men and women must be afforded equal protection under the law, regardless of what any of our individual opinions are about “personal responsibility”.
Men and women must be held to the same standard … period.
Therefore, men must be allowed the option of giving the child up for adoption, the same as the mother has that choice. By giving the child up for adoption, either parent would then forfeit any parental rights and obligations, leaving the other parent with the option of raising the child on their own, or allow a third party to adopt the child, thereby relieving both parents of parental rights and obligations.
If both parents want custody, then there would be 50/50 custody with no child support awarded to either party, unless agreed to by the parties.
It’s fair, it’s impartial, and it’s not rocket science.
As long as women, the courts, and state governments, stand to profit immensely from females getting pregnant to make the father a slave, this injustice will continue. It has nothing to do with “personal responsibility”. It has a great deal to do with equal protection under the law.]
If that gives you more of the answers to this problem, than me, then so be it.
Answer this question.
Are you “charging” people for your services?
Yes or no.
Kevin Merck (Just in case you missed it)
January 4, 2008 at 12:24 pm
right2parent said,
I don’t want to restore the legal doctrine. I can’t change that, and neither can you. A patriarchal system of family government is a liberty interest. Your reliance on natural guardianship rights deriving from the marriage relationship is an inalienable right. I would like to restore respect for the natural guardianship status the marriage relationship bestows. This requires family courts respect the status of the natural guardian, and apply the required strict scrutiny review of a challenge to his fitness to maintain it. Oh, and don’t father any children you don’t want to be responsible for. That’s how you remove the incentives for divorce from the equation.
And, no, I don’t offer “services.” I work with my freinds to try to clean up the mess we’re in.
January 4, 2008 at 4:04 pm
metalman said,
I am responsding to your post quite late. It’s been a while since I’ve been here. Hopefully, uou will read this.
I quote you:
“Everything that a man offers a woman in exchange for a long term relationship has been eliminated.”
You are exactly right, and your arguments are well drawn. As I had mentioned above, I believe that a coteire of powerfull gender feminists are trying to achieve a utopian state where men are seen as ATM machines to feed their communal trough. I don’t know whether or not you agree with me, but your arguments ring very true to my ears.
I also caught quite an MGTOW sentiment in your post. I am a divorced man and part of the MGTOW movement. I am much happier as a result.
January 6, 2008 at 1:42 pm
right2parent said,
“Everything that a man offers a woman in exchange for a long term relationship has been eliminated.”
Although this is a common perception, it is not exactly true. To “eliminate” a necessary characteristic of marriage, you have to accept the notion that a state legislature or Congress has the power to change God’s law. The reason for marriage is to create a family relationship. This is done by a transfer of natural guardianship from a mother to the father, giving him a stake in the relationship, and an incentive for a mother’s fidelity.
In reality, the law has not changed. What has changed is people’s perception of the effect of case law related to the placement of state wards. What people need to understand is the difference in the standard of review afforded in an action to change the status of a natural guardian, and the proper use of the “best interest” standard in a proceeding to place a ward of the state. A divorce does not by itself divest a father of his natural right to guardianship. An improper response to a petition for custody can have this affect.
January 21, 2008 at 9:08 am